| Author |
Message |
The Pook
Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 2904
Location: Tasmania
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
 |
|
| avangils wrote: | Pook, this is the comment I was referring to, the words were not 'lazy thinker' but might as well have been.
| jelly bean wrote: |
I simply believe that this idea that the Archibald is 'conservative' is over exaggerated. In some cases, I think that it's simply an easy thing for people to say when lost for something more insightful. |
|
hmm... it's my considered opinion that over exaggerated is over exaggerated. Or at least tautologous.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
jelly bean
Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:55 pm Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| The Pook wrote: |
As for the question of an "artist's right to cause offense" I realise perhaps Simon was at least partly tongue in cheek with his answer to that, but seriously, is this an absolute right? Or are there boundaries? On the one hand I think that art, particularly satirical political art for example, ought to have the right to challenge the political and social status quo in the name of truth and justice, etc. But if you approach it from the other angle, by asking should Art have a right to offense that goes beyond the normal individual rights of people to offend, the answer gets a bit murkier doesn't it? Is Art really in a special category that excuses it from thing like the laws of libel or racial vilification for example? Are Nazi cartoons of stereotyped Jewish people okay by this appeal to exemption? I would say not. |
Thanks Pook. Surely people must see that there is a line, one that is frequently crossed. In the case of such 'works' as pissed Christ, the intent is almost entirely to create controversy. Is that entirely justified?
Simon, I'm afraid I don't know where you're coming from. Your work is, in essence not offensive in anyway. Why are you swearing at the thought of art being restrained by a conscience?
Last edited by jelly bean on Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AvG
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1912
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:20 pm Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
[quote="jelly bean"] | The Pook wrote: | | avangils wrote: |
As for the question of an "artist's right to cause offense" I realise perhaps Simon was at least partly tongue in cheek with his answer to that, but seriously, is this an absolute right? Or are there boundaries? On the one hand I think that art, particularly satirical political art for example, ought to have the right to challenge the political and social status quo in the name of truth and justice, etc. But if you approach it from the other angle, by asking should Art have a right to offense that goes beyond the normal individual rights of people to offend, the answer gets a bit murkier doesn't it? Is Art really in a special category that excuses it from thing like the laws of libel or racial vilification for example? Are Nazi cartoons of stereotyped Jewish people okay by this appeal to exemption? I would say not. |
Thanks Pook. Surely people must see that there is a line, one that is frequently crossed. In the case of such 'works' as pissed Christ, the intent is almost entirely to create controversy. Is that entirely justified?
Simon, I'm afraid I don't know where you're coming from. Your work is, in essence not offensive in anyway. Why are you swearing at the thought of art being restrained by a conscience? |
Excuse me jelly bean, if you use the quote function please ensure that you are attributing the quote to the correct person. I am happy to be quoted but not for other people's words.
Last edited by AvG on Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hayley
Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Posts: 344
Location: Geelong
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:35 pm Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| jelly bean wrote: | | Thanks Pook. Surely people must see that there is a line, one that is frequently crossed. In the case of such 'works' as pissed Christ, the intent is almost entirely to create controversy. Is that entirely justified? |
Assumption or fact that it was the artist's intention? Justified? Justification is not a requirement in life unless something is illegal. It was not illegal, so he was within his rights to place a religious symbol in a container of urine. Offensive? To Christians - of course.
I've been reading with amusement thus far at the snippy little comments, one-upmanship and personal challenges and just wondering if you yourself are taking the piss? If you have received such a vast amount of self-proclaimed media coverage Jelly Bean you must indeed have a touch of the wonderful about your work, and have been 'around the traps' awhile. So it seems your intent is almost entirely to create controversy. Nothing wrong with stirring things up a bit and asking people to think, debate, rationalise and justify, but it seems only fair that you reveal the artist behind the confectionery and allow us to look at your work as you have demanded the right from darian zam. Are you brave enough?
| jelly bean wrote: | | Simon, I'm afraid I don't know where you're coming from. Your work is, in essence not offensive in anyway. Why are you swearing at the thought of art being restrained by a conscience? |
I can't answer for Simon (he's more than capable!!!), but what's the correlation between an artist's work and their right to express personal ideologies? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jelly bean
Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:35 pm Post subject: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| oops, apologies. I DID thank Pook immediately, so I assume that people got it. Anyways, I'll be more careful next time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jelly bean
Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:49 pm Post subject: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
An artist' work SHOULD represent their ideologies, hence I simply asked why Simon has a problem with my questioning of the line which is too easily crossed by artists when he doesn't get close to crossing it himself... Seems logical, doesn't it?
I have entered this forum to discuss idea, but not my own work. I don't like to discuss my own work with other artists. Simple. It's not a case of 'courage', but simply that I don't want to compromise my own ideas with others which might muddy the clarity I have. Eh, you mightn't get it, but that's how it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AvG
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1912
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:23 am Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| jelly bean wrote: | | oops, apologies. I DID thank Pook immediately, so I assume that people got it. Anyways, I'll be more careful next time. |
OK thanks. But perhaps you would go back and edit your post? If you just remove the little bracket that says ["quote=avangils" after the [quote The Pook] it will read correctly. At the moment it looks like you are thanking the pook for quoting me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Simon
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 1856
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:29 am Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| jelly bean wrote: |
Simon, I'm afraid I don't know where you're coming from. Your work is, in essence not offensive in anyway. Why are you swearing at the thought of art being restrained by a conscience?
|
I'm not. I just answered the question.
If an artist restrains the essence of their creativity because their conscience is in the way, their art becomes a dishonest watered down version of what they'd really like to say. If their conscience is embraced in the work, or ignored for the benefit of the work it's a different thing.
| jelly bean wrote: |
An artist' work SHOULD represent their ideologies, hence I simply asked why Simon has a problem with my questioning of the line which is too easily crossed by artists when he doesn't get close to crossing it himself... Seems logical, doesn't it?
|
No. Completely illogical. You don't have to be a dog to voice an opinion on animal cruelty.
I have no problem with you questioning the line. Again, all I did was answer your question. But you seem to be suggesting that only makers of offensive art are qualified to answer your question with an answer like mine? Because I have a belief that art is allowed to upset people suddenly you have as good as accused me of not being honest with my own work? I'm not an angry person and my subject matter chooses me from the life I lead, and life's not too bad. I'm not obliged to upset people with my work just because I believe good art can. Knowing when not to offend is as important.
| jelly bean wrote: |
I have entered this forum to discuss idea, but not my own work. I don't like to discuss my own work with other artists. Simple. It's not a case of 'courage', but simply that I don't want to compromise my own ideas with others which might muddy the clarity I have. Eh, you mightn't get it, but that's how it is. |
I don't think anyone has a problem with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jelly bean
Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:50 am Post subject: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
Simon,
I'm afraid we think somewhat differently on this matter. If you really ARE of the belief that artists can so whatever they wish, despite it's ranging ripples, then I can't agree with you. Art SHOULD reflect morality and life, not simply irritate. Irritation of sensitive issues seems to be almost normal practice. This isn't acceptable when innocent people are in the line of fire whenever some idiot 'artist' comes up with an often ill informed view.
I accept that your life might reflect in your art, but since you seem to have enough passion to swear about it, why doesn't your core work explore more political and cultural issues? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AvG
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1912
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:15 pm Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| jelly bean wrote: | | Art SHOULD reflect morality and life |
I am often amused/confused/plain baffled when anyone uses the words 'art' and 'should' together. Art is not prescriptive. If it were, then we wld always do what we had always done and we would still be painting pictures of the madonna and child or even cave paintings/
| jelly bean wrote: | | I accept that your life might reflect in your art, but since you seem to have enough passion to swear about it, why doesn't your core work explore more political and cultural issues? |
And why should it? Or more to the point, why should it do it in such an overt way to be obvious to everyone?
While you may not want to reveal your own identity or talk about your own work (though in 2 1/2 years on this forum I have never even come close to having a discussion with anyone that has clouded my own ideas), it might be interesting to discuss what artists or art works you admire and why. Perhaps you could educate us about what good art is  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jelly bean
Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:25 pm Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| avangils wrote: |
While you may not want to reveal your own identity or talk about your own work (though in 2 1/2 years on this forum I have never even come close to having a discussion with anyone that has clouded my own ideas), it might be interesting to discuss what artists or art works you admire and why. Perhaps you could educate us about what good art is |
Hi Avangils,
What I think is 'good art' is irrelevant to this discussion. I'm simply putting forward the idea that artists have no more of a license than anyone to be insensitive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Simon
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 1856
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:29 pm Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| jelly bean wrote: | Simon,
I'm afraid we think somewhat differently on this matter. If you really ARE of the belief that artists can so whatever they wish, |
never said that, I said in response to your question that they have the right to create offensive art | jelly bean wrote: | | despite it's ranging ripples, then I can't agree with you. Art SHOULD reflect morality and life, not simply irritate. |
the thing with art is that it can say whatever it wants, it's visual (or aural etc) language, how well that's done determines how good it is, not what punters say it should or shouldn't say | jelly bean wrote: | | Irritation of sensitive issues seems to be almost normal practice. This isn't acceptable when innocent people are in the line of fire whenever some idiot 'artist' comes up with an often ill informed view. |
I agree. I seek informed honest artwork, and it's wonderful when it's there to connect with. | jelly bean wrote: | | I accept that your life might reflect in your art, but since you seem to have enough passion to swear about it, why doesn't your core work explore more political and cultural issues? |
I've chosen how I like to work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AvG
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1912
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:50 pm Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| jelly bean wrote: |
What I think is 'good art' is irrelevant to this discussion. I'm simply putting forward the idea that artists have no more of a license than anyone to be insensitive. |
I'm not really sure we are having a discussion.
You choose not to disclose artistic preferences, or anything about yourself aside form a vauge and possibly irrelevant claim to have had lots of media coverage, yet feeling quite happy to call other forum members to account for their own work choices......which if I remember rightly was smething you complained about with Darian's complaints. All a bit too one sided for me and I don't think at all productive so I'm bowing out of this 'discussion' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Pook
Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 2904
Location: Tasmania
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:37 pm Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| avangils wrote: | | jelly bean wrote: | | oops, apologies. I DID thank Pook immediately, so I assume that people got it. Anyways, I'll be more careful next time. |
OK thanks. But perhaps you would go back and edit your post? If you just remove the little bracket that says ["quote=avangils" after the [quote The Pook] it will read correctly. At the moment it looks like you are thanking the pook for quoting me. |
haha  and likewise in your earlier post Amanda (not this one), where you quote the errror, it looks like you are admonishing me for something I didn't say too! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AvG
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1912
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject: Re: Re - Archibald 2008 |
|
|
| The Pook wrote: | | haha and likewise in your earlier post Amanda (not this one), where you quote the errror, it looks like you are admonishing me for something I didn't say too! |
Sorry Pook I didn't think that was the case but I have gone back to edit to make sure it is clear that I wasn't admonishing you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
